Messages in this thread | | | From | (Alan Cox) | Subject | Re: FreeGPL license proposal (was Re: Linus Speaks About KDE-Bashing) | Date | Wed, 15 Jul 1998 20:31:56 +0100 (BST) |
| |
> Why not consider making the Mozilla Public License the basis for the > new FreeGPL license? The one thing about the Mozilla Public License > is that it has been extensively reviewed and hashed out by both > Netscapes laywers and developers in the Open Source Community to the > point of agreement.
FreeGPL is a very poor and misleading name for any new license. I thin the MPL has its place however
> The one biggest plus is that this license is now well known, and I > think it is highly beneficial to the Open Source Community for as > much code as possible to fall under the same license. I think this is
Licenses - each has its place but not too many . Couldnt agree more
> understand all the legal ramifications of the license. In fact IMHO > if you interpret the GPL/LGPL's anti-commerical sentiments it would > appear to me that much of the commercial software appearing for Linux > does violate some of the GPL licensing (but this is argueable because > the damn license is so vague!).
The C libraries are LGPL so that appears to be a non issue. The kernel itself is GPL and because of license interpretation issues the kernel has the following in the README, to clarify it.
-----------
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
-----------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |